Death Of The Alpha? (1 Viewer)

[BruceH]

I am surprised that Tract or Maven haven't jumped in at some point.

I suspect Maven and Tract are smart enough to know not to jump into a thread like this.

 

[james holdsworth]

I suspect Maven and Tract are smart enough to know not to jump into a thread like this.

At some point, they will be asking Dennis to return his unit and disavow any knowledge of the brand going forward.

 

[[email protected]]

At some point, they will be asking Dennis to return his unit and disavow any knowledge of the brand going forward.

HaHa! That is a good one James. My main point is I think the Tract and Maven are excellent binoculars for their price point and I have had a lot of binoculars but I have never found roof prism binoculars of this quality for such good prices. I really think they are going to make some serious inroads into the alpha binocular market.

 

[[email protected]]

I suspect Maven and Tract are smart enough to know not to jump into a thread like this.

Probably.

 

[[email protected]]

Because I have an 8.5X which, by the way, is midway between 7X and 10X. And, the 10X50 SV has a greater AFOV, something that really holds one's viewing interest. And it has greater eye relief, something I need. And, my 10X50 SV weighs more...I got more for my money!

Do you ever experience any rolling ball with your Swarovski's or does your wife? Just curious.

 

[Alexis Powell]

Maybe so, but it would definitely make you wonder why you spent $2k on 'em, and why the TT only cost $600.

I've never wondered that. It has long been true that close to alpha performance doesn't cost anything close to alpha prices. I bought my Nikon 8x30 EII for $210 new when they were a current model in the USA. I consider the Bushnell 8x42 Legend Ultra HD superb even though it has often sold for <$200.

--AP

 

[jgraider]

Those EII's, and SE's for that matter must really be something, as everyone raves about them. Too bad they're not waterproof. I'll respectfully disagree about the $200 Bushy's though.

 

[[email protected]]

I've never wondered that. It has long been true that close to alpha performance doesn't cost anything close to alpha prices. I bought my Nikon 8x30 EII for $210 new when they were a current model in the USA. I consider the Bushnell 8x42 Legend Ultra HD superb even though it has often sold for <$200.

--AP

IMO I don't think there has ever been ROOF prism binoculars with optical quality AND build quality like the Tract or Maven. There have always been porro-prism binoculars that could challenge the roofs optically but they lacked waterproofing or other features that buyers desired and some people didn't like them because they "look" old fashioned. Roofs dominate now it is a fact. Although the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD has good glass I don' think the build quality is alpha level when you have to sort through sample binoculars to find a "good" one. You don't have to sort through Tract's or Maven's to find a "good" one.

 

[Alexis Powell]

...I must say that I don't do butterflies....

Obviously! You don't seem to know from experience what you are arguing against.

I think if I did observe butteflies and insects a lot a would invest in a pair of Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 which would give you a much closer focus than any Zeiss...

Yes, I've got them. Have had them since they first came out, over a decade ago. Recently, I got the new version which has better coatings. The Papilio are fine, but I'm not a fan of them for birding+butterflying, more just for dedicated butterflying.

My point is do you really need a 6 foot close focus or is 8 feet close enough? How close do you really want to get to that bug?

This is where your lack of field experience with butterflies reveals itself. At close range, small amounts of distance matter a lot for two reasons. First, the ability to see detail at 5 feet is considerably better than at 8 feet. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there is the question of whether you will be able to focus on a butterfly once it is detected. When e.g. working through a stand of milkweed, it is common to not see butterflies (esp. those adorable but quick-flighted skippers) until one is very close to them. Nothing is more irritating than discovering that you have to back up to bring a newly-found prize into sharp focus EXCEPT discovering that once you back up you no longer have a clear line-of-site view of the target (very common since many butterflies, esp. skippers, hang on the undersides of downward-facing blooms. I find that a bin with ~4 ft close focus covers these situations well. My Zeiss 8x32 FL (which has the merit of also being excellent for birds) with its 5 ft close focus KILLS my Leica 8x32 BA with its 8 foot close focus. Many bins that are excellent for birds are entirely unacceptable with their ~12 foot close focus (e.g. Leica 7x42 Ultravid). Sure, you can see some butterflies through any bin, and you can make excuses for differences in FOV and close focus spec 'til the end of time, but these days we don't have to settle for those limitations. We can carry one bin that will work for butterflies AND birds! GET THE BEST AND FORGET THE REST! Or, if you are an optics fan like me, get the best and get the other stuff too, just don't pretend that bins with different spec are functionally equivalent.

--AP

 

[[email protected]]

Those EII's, and SE's for that matter must really be something, as everyone raves about them. Too bad they're not waterproof. I'll respectfully disagree about the $200 Bushy's though.

I have tried a lot of porro's and the SE and EII are probably the best porro's for birding and they are really close to the best alpha's optically with some people preferring them because of the 3D mage. They are kind of an alpha porro. The only trouble is they lack waterproofing and they are not sealed against dust which doesn't bother a lot of people.

 

[[email protected]]

Obviously! You don't seem to know from experience what you are arguing against.


Yes, I've got them. Have had them since they first came out, over a decade ago. Recently, I got the new version which has better coatings. The Papilio are fine, but I'm not a fan of them for birding+butterflying, more just for dedicated butterflying.


This is where your lack of field experience with butterflies reveals itself. At close range, small amounts of distance matter a lot for two reasons. First, the ability to see detail at 5 feet is considerably better than at 8 feet. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there is the question of whether you will be able to focus on a butterfly once it is detected. When e.g. working through a stand of milkweed, it is common to not see butterflies (esp. those adorable but quick-flighted skippers) until one is very close to them. Nothing is more irritating than discovering that you have to back up to bring a newly-found prize into sharp focus EXCEPT discovering that once you back up you no longer have a clear line-of-site view of the target (very common since many butterflies, esp. skippers, hang on the undersides of downward-facing blooms. I find that a bin with ~4 ft close focus covers these situations well. My Zeiss 8x32 FL (which has the merit of also being excellent for birds) with its 5 ft close focus KILLS my Leica 8x32 BA with its 8 foot close focus. Many bins that are excellent for birds are entirely unacceptable with their ~12 foot close focus (e.g. Leica 7x42 Ultravid). Sure, you can see some butterflies through any bin, and you can make excuses for differences in FOV and close focus spec 'til the end of time, but these days we don't have to settle for those limitations. We can carry one bin that will work for butterflies AND birds! GET THE BEST AND FORGET THE REST! Or, if you are an optics fan like me, get the best and get the other stuff too, just don't pretend that bins with different spec are functionally equivalent.

--AP

Thanks for your insight on butterfly observing Alexis. I just don't do it much. Would you say at close range the Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 will generally give you a better view of insects than a general purpose binocular like a Zeiss 8x42 SF?

 

[Alexis Powell]

Thanks for your insight on butterfly observing Alexis. I just don't do it much.

You're quite welcome.

Would you say at close range the Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 will generally give you a better view of insects than a general purpose binocular like a Zeiss 8x42 SF?

The Pentax 6.5x21 Papilio have no competition for binocular close focus, and close focus rules for seeing detail of insects. I carry the Papilio for dedicated butterflying, but since I often like to do butterflying+birding, I like having some models available that can do both. The Zeiss 8x32 FL (and Conquest) are superb because they have rapid but precise focus. If Swarovski would give their x32 and x42 EL SV models variable-ratio focus knobs, they'd be excellent as well, because they already do well for close-focus spec, it's just awkward to make use of it (only good in a pinch).

--AP

 

[Pileatus]

Do you ever experience any rolling ball with your Swarovski's or does your wife? Just curious.

No on RB. The 8X32 SV is hers and she has absolutley no complaints. I've asked many times if she sees any haze, flare, or light interference of any kind and she says no. In more than 10 years she never had one complaint about her 8X32 SE and she does not wear eyeglasses. She had no blackouts or other difficulty in getting a good view. Over the years, I noticed she focused much less than I do at all distances, something I attributed to her excellent vision. She now prefers the 8X32 SV to the 8X32 SE. Also, she would NEVER use any bin that exceeded the weight of the 22 ounce SE.

 

[[email protected]]

No on RB. The 8X32 SV is hers and she has absolutley no complaints. I've asked many times if she sees any haze, flare, or light interference of any kind and she says no. In more than 10 years she never had one complaint about her 8X32 SE and she does not wear eyeglasses. She had no blackouts or other difficulty in getting a good view. Over the years, I noticed she focused much less than I do at all distances, something I attributed to her excellent vision. She now prefers the 8X32 SV to the 8X32 SE. Also, she would NEVER use any bin that exceeded the weight of the 22 ounce SE.

Interesting that she prefers the SV over the SE. I would guess ease of view and maybe ergonomics.

 

[[email protected]]

This excerpt from an article in American Rifleman explains how Tract's bring quality binoculars to the market at such a savings.

"A New Concept

Unlike so many other pioneers in their fields, Lacorte and Allen didn’t set out to reinvent the products. That would have been foolish and all but impossible, given that the world of optics is well-established and full of engineers with weird brains that can understand optical engineering on a level that normal humans can’t comprehend.

Unless you have a concept that is completely revolutionary, trying to improve on such a long-established and well-developed product line is a bad idea. What is bloated and inefficient is the way optics are sold. So what the Jons did differently was brilliant in its own way. They saw a problem that needed a solution, and they decided to change the way we buy optics.


Today, optics are mostly sold with distributors, sales reps and brick-and-mortar retail stores all taking a cut. Add shipping and storage, wages, taxes and all the other hidden costs, and it all adds up. You didn’t seriously think the high price of a scope or binocular was all for the glass, did you? Everybody in the supply chain gets a taste. The longer the chain, the higher the price, but with no corresponding increase in quality.

In fact, quite the opposite is often the case. In trying to satisfy retailer demands, optics manufacturers often downgrade quality and cut corners rather than raise prices. It’s a bit of a death spiral, which more than one company has been caught in. So, the two Jons decided to reinvent all that by bringing their products direct to the consumer.

The way we buy things has changed over the decades. My grandfather ordered from a catalog like Herter’s. My dad had the small local gun store order optics for him, as they could not afford inventory. I bought from the large chain stores and my kids order from Amazon. How we shop has evolved with each generation, and with the Internet, that evolution is moving exponentially faster.

But, in every case, there is a supply chain that runs up the price to the consumer. The Jons decided to get ahead of the curve and use the technology available today to bring their products direct to the consumer. Now the supply chain has one link: Tract Optics.


Jon Lacorte (shown here) and business partner, Jon Allen, have spent their entire careers in the optics business—experience they now bring to Tract Optics.

What that means for you, the end user, is that you get high-quality optics ensured by combined decades in the optics business, but you get to keep all the profit that the multiple middlemen would have made.

How Tract Optics Perform

I have used the scopes from Tract Optics, and I am impressed. That’s not a throwaway statement. I have been writing about optics for about 30 years and have been able to hunt and shoot with the very best. I am not ashamed to say that I have become an optics snob.

Once you use high-quality optics, it’s impossible to return to budget glass and be happy. The optics are as clear and bright on these scopes and binoculars as anything on the market. If it were a blind test, it would be impossible to know them from competitors costing twice or three times as much.

To be honest, I see that as a bit of a negative for Tract Optics. We consumers have been conditioned over the years to equate optical quality with a price point, so the Tract Optics team will need to work hard to overcome those suspicions. We have always been told that there is no free lunch, so we figure there must be a catch here someplace. There is not. Tract Optics has simply figured out a better way to do it.

However, it’s all new, and new concepts raise suspicions. I saw that at the range when testing the optics. We showed them to another shooter, and he would not believe that the quality was that high and the price that low. Consumers need to understand and accept that this is an unprecedented and new way to sell sport optics. We need to allow ourselves to accept the savings."

Jon Lacorte sums it up well himself.

“Starting Tract Optics was like having a clean slate to design and develop products without worrying about the barriers and hurdles normally associated with working for large corporations,” he said. “We set out to design the finest binoculars and riflescopes without any limitations, and the result is a product line that shatters the expectations of what the consumer gets for their money.”

 

[Troubador]

My point is do you really need a 6 foot close focus or is 8 feet close enough? How close do you really want to get to that bug?

Dennis you have forgotten already that it was you that recommended the ultra-close focusing Pentax Papillio to me and now you are asking questions about 6 vs 8 ft? Seriously?

If you would read my post instead of imagining what I said you would know this, or are you just trying to change your own subject?

Lee

 

[Troubador]

This excerpt from an article in American Rifleman explains how Tract's bring quality binoculars to the market at such a savings.

"A New Concept

Unlike so many other pioneers in their fields, Lacorte and Allen didn’t set out to reinvent the products. That would have been foolish and all but impossible, given that the world of optics is well-established and full of engineers with weird brains that can understand optical engineering on a level that normal humans can’t comprehend.

Unless you have a concept that is completely revolutionary, trying to improve on such a long-established and well-developed product line is a bad idea. What is bloated and inefficient is the way optics are sold. So what the Jons did differently was brilliant in its own way. They saw a problem that needed a solution, and they decided to change the way we buy optics.


Today, optics are mostly sold with distributors, sales reps and brick-and-mortar retail stores all taking a cut. Add shipping and storage, wages, taxes and all the other hidden costs, and it all adds up. You didn’t seriously think the high price of a scope or binocular was all for the glass, did you? Everybody in the supply chain gets a taste. The longer the chain, the higher the price, but with no corresponding increase in quality.

In fact, quite the opposite is often the case. In trying to satisfy retailer demands, optics manufacturers often downgrade quality and cut corners rather than raise prices. It’s a bit of a death spiral, which more than one company has been caught in. So, the two Jons decided to reinvent all that by bringing their products direct to the consumer.

The way we buy things has changed over the decades. My grandfather ordered from a catalog like Herter’s. My dad had the small local gun store order optics for him, as they could not afford inventory. I bought from the large chain stores and my kids order from Amazon. How we shop has evolved with each generation, and with the Internet, that evolution is moving exponentially faster.

But, in every case, there is a supply chain that runs up the price to the consumer. The Jons decided to get ahead of the curve and use the technology available today to bring their products direct to the consumer. Now the supply chain has one link: Tract Optics.


Jon Lacorte (shown here) and business partner, Jon Allen, have spent their entire careers in the optics business—experience they now bring to Tract Optics.

What that means for you, the end user, is that you get high-quality optics ensured by combined decades in the optics business, but you get to keep all the profit that the multiple middlemen would have made.

How Tract Optics Perform

I have used the scopes from Tract Optics, and I am impressed. That’s not a throwaway statement. I have been writing about optics for about 30 years and have been able to hunt and shoot with the very best. I am not ashamed to say that I have become an optics snob.

Once you use high-quality optics, it’s impossible to return to budget glass and be happy. The optics are as clear and bright on these scopes and binoculars as anything on the market. If it were a blind test, it would be impossible to know them from competitors costing twice or three times as much.

To be honest, I see that as a bit of a negative for Tract Optics. We consumers have been conditioned over the years to equate optical quality with a price point, so the Tract Optics team will need to work hard to overcome those suspicions. We have always been told that there is no free lunch, so we figure there must be a catch here someplace. There is not. Tract Optics has simply figured out a better way to do it.

However, it’s all new, and new concepts raise suspicions. I saw that at the range when testing the optics. We showed them to another shooter, and he would not believe that the quality was that high and the price that low. Consumers need to understand and accept that this is an unprecedented and new way to sell sport optics. We need to allow ourselves to accept the savings."

Jon Lacorte sums it up well himself.

“Starting Tract Optics was like having a clean slate to design and develop products without worrying about the barriers and hurdles normally associated with working for large corporations,” he said. “We set out to design the finest binoculars and riflescopes without any limitations, and the result is a product line that shatters the expectations of what the consumer gets for their money.”

And yet Pete Gamby, with inside knowledge of the costs of out-sourced manufacturing, still thinks the Tract's price is higher than he would expect.

Lee

 

[The-Wanderer]

IIRC, tract has a history of discounting prices: perhaps higher original prices permit this.

 

[Troubador]

You're quite welcome.


I often like to do butterflying+birding, I like having some models available that can do both. The Zeiss 8x32 FL (and Conquest) are superb because they have rapid but precise focus.
--AP

Dennis

Alexis nailed it. For birding combined with insect and flower spotting a regular close focusing binocular with fast precise focus and great FOV does the job for me. And since I am usually carrying a camera and three lenses as well as bins, hand lens and backpack, personally I don't want to carry an extra pair of bins as well. If I need a really specialist close-up instrument I take a Zeiss 6x18 monocular which I have used for 19 years now and have got used to.

Sometimes with dragonflies you might need to look at the male's mating appendages and these are small. Viewing at 6 feet as opposed to 8 can make all the difference. And finding something nearly at your feet as you come around a bush or a rock, its great just to be able to focus on it and not have to risk spooking it by having to back up because you are too close.

Using bins to look at flowers sounds crazy but the views you can get are better than with the naked eye. If you doubt this cast your mind back to the nature shows on television where they have shown you an amazing close-up of a butterfly on a flower and you have thought 'Wow, you don't get views like that in real life'. Well actually you can get views just as terrific using the close focus capability of regular bins with a 1.5 or 2.0 metre focus. The Papillio has an even closer focus which is brilliant if a specialist instrument is something you are prepared to carry, I don't find its FOV helpful for fast flying insects.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis

Alexis nailed it. For birding combined with insect and flower spotting a regular close focusing binocular with fast precise focus and great FOV does the job for me. And since I am usually carrying a camera and three lenses as well as bins, hand lens and backpack, personally I don't want to carry an extra pair of bins as well. If I need a really specialist close-up instrument I take a Zeiss 6x18 monocular which I have used for 19 years now and have got used to.

Sometimes with dragonflies you might need to look at the male's mating appendages and these are small. Viewing at 6 feet as opposed to 8 can make all the difference. And finding something nearly at your feet as you come around a bush or a rock, its great just to be able to focus on it and not have to risk spooking it by having to back up because you are too close.

Using bins to look at flowers sounds crazy but the views you can get are better than with the naked eye. If you doubt this cast your mind back to the nature shows on television where they have shown you an amazing close-up of a butterfly on a flower and you have thought 'Wow, you don't get views like that in real life'. Well actually you can get views just as terrific using the close focus capability of regular bins with a 1.5 or 2.0 metre focus. The Papillio has an even closer focus which is brilliant if a specialist instrument is something you are prepared to carry, I don't find its FOV helpful for fast flying insects.

Lee

I have never tried insect watching but it sounds interesting. The point I am trying to make is that at 8x magnification when you observe an insect at 6 feet(Zeiss Close Focus) versus 8 feet(Tracts Close Focus) you are really only 3 inches closer to the insect. Does 3 inches really make a difference in detail? If you used a Tract 10x42 at 8 feet you would be only .6 inch farther away than the Zeiss at 6 feet. I have looked at bugs before and I personally can not see any more detail at 9 inches versus 12 inches.